Can deadly force be used to recover property?

[vito]

Scenario: thug comes up behind you, punches you in the back of the head. You fall to the floor and the thug takes your wallet, phone, etc and starts to walk away. Unbeknownst to the thug you are carrying concealed. You draw your weapon and demand the thug stop and return you property. He keeps walking, totally ignoring you. Are you justified if you shoot or must you just stand and watch as your personal property disappears down the street?

 

[hovercat]

At night, in TX, with no reasonable expectation that you could recover the property another way (such as knowing the attacker's identity), yes. Other states, not so much.

 

[Bobson]

State law would make clear the proper legal response regarding the use of force. I doubt any state would allow lethal force in this situation, as there would be virtually zero threat to the safety of anybody. Deadly force, in the states I know of, is always reserved for protecting first or third party life, and to prevent or end especially serious (and very specific) crimes in progress, such as rape or kidnapping.

 

[Frank Ettin]

At night, in TX, with no reasonable expectation that you could recover the property another way (such as knowing the attacker's identity), yes. Other states, not so much.

And this is a slight oversimplification of Texas law. Here is the Texas law on the subject, Texas Penal Code 9.42:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and​

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.​

Note that deadly force would only be permissible if (1) the actor reasonably believed that there was no other way to protect the property; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that any use of force other than deadly force would expose the him to a substantial risk of death or grave bodily injury. And the real wild card here is how these standards have been applied by Texas courts.

Texas law is probably the most defender oriented use-of-force law in the country. Use of deadly force to recover property would be significantly more questionable in other States. Your personal property can be replaces. But if you use lethal force when not legally justified, you'll be going to prison for a long time.

State law would make clear the proper legal response regarding the use of force. I doubt any state would allow lethal force in this situation, as there would be virtually zero threat to the safety of anybody. Deadly force, in the states I know of, is always reserved for protecting first or third party life, and to prevent or end especially serious (and very specific) crimes in progress, such as rape or kidnapping.

And that is a good perspective.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The "at night" qualifier is irrelevant to lethal force in defense of property in Texas. That is a separate Texas statute that allows lethal force in response to criminal mischief at night under certain conditions.

And as Frank Ettin pointed out, the case law is all over the map on shooting in defense of property. There is a 1977 case where a doctor was acquitted after shooting a 17yr old boy stealing his car battery (the doctor was later sued civilly). More recently, a convenience store clerk was convicted of murder for shooting a man who stole beer and ran outside. One of the first 50 shootings involving a CHL concerned a man who followed a thief who had stolen his car stereo. Unbeknownst to him, the thief had already ditched the stereo several blocks back. He got convicted as well.

There are so many gray areas in the defense of property statute that I wouldn't recommend shooting someone over property unless that property was so vital to you or your family that you were OK with spending the next 20 years in prison.

 

[Texan Scott]

Mr. Ettin is dead on. Replaceable property will NOT be considered valid cause for use of deadly force in any Texas court I can imagine. My belongings are insured. Even my Italian leather wallet is replaceable. If someone is stealing the gilded urn containing your sainted mother's mortal remains, you MIGHT not go to prison. Of course, your sainted mother probably wouldn't want you to shoot a man in the back for her pot of ashes.

Pretty much anything else will get you indicted for murder, even in Texas.... and we frown on that sort of thing here.

 

[verge]

And the real wild card here is how these standards have been applied by Texas courts.

The answer to your question is these cases generally do not make it to court in Texas. If they are referred to the Grand Jury, which many of them are not, they are generally killed, "No Billed", by the Grand Jury.

We take our right to defend ourselves and our property and even that of our neighbors seriously in Texas.

http://www.newser.com/story/31381/no-charges-for-texas-man-who-shot-neighbors-burglars.html

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Dallas-homeowner-shoots-intruders-one-dead-176096051.html

http://www.texashuntfish.com/app/vi...law-arms-Texas-homeowners-with-right-to-shoot

 

[MedWheeler]

In Florida, one can make a "citizen's arrest", pursuant to the principles of English Common Law, in cases of forcible felonies. Deadly force may be permitted to make such an arrest provided these conditions exist: the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe a forcible felony has taken place and the person being arrested is the person responsible and the person being arrested is in immediate flight from the scene/time of the crime, and the person making the arrest believes himself/herself to be at risk of serious bodily injury or death if such force is not used (or believes another innocent person to be.)

In such an arrest, the citizen making it becomes the "arresting officer" throughout the judicial process.

A "robbery by sudden snatching" is a forcible felony in Florida. It used to be referred to as a "strong-arm robbery."

Now, in such an arrest situation, you're not doing it to recover property; you're doing it to effect the arrest.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And the real wild card here is how these standards have been applied by Texas courts.

The answer to your question is these cases generally do not make it to court in Texas. If they are referred to the Grand Jury, which many of them are not, they are generally killed, "No Billed", by the Grand Jury...

Not necessarily. First, in Texas homicides must be brought to the grand jury.

Second cases of the use of force in claimed self defense are sometimes charged and tried. See, for example:

1. Lowry v. State, No. 13-03-00081-CR (Tex. App. 2/7/2008) (Tex. App., 2008)
   
   
2. Gonzales v. State, No. 07-04-0500-CR (Tex. App. 10/26/2006) (Tex. App., 2006)
   
   
3. Jackson v. State, 753 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 1988)

That's the result of a very quick search. In each of those cases the court of appeal affirmed a conviction in a case in which the defendant claimed self defense.

 

[rcmodel]

What if you ran up behind him and kicked him in the butt while he was ignoring your lawful orders to stop??

Then, when he turned around to attack you??

Never mind!

Probably a bad idea!

rc

 

[Kleanbore]

If they are referred to the Grand Jury, which many of them are not, they are generally killed, "No Billed", by the Grand Jury.

All fatal use of force incidents are referred to Grand Juries in Texas, even if justification seems clear.

The answer to your question is these cases generally do not make it to court in Texas.

That is not demonstrably true, but of course some do not.

The practice of pleading guilty to reduced charges with lesser penalties has been discussed here before. Such agreements are not made public.

 

[Praxidike]

Law enforcement isn't even allowed to kill someone because they stole something, so why should we? Whether it's legal or not, killing a thief who's leaving voluntarily and/or possibly an innocent bystander or neighbor over replaceable objects should be illegal and most likely will cost you more in legal fees and trouble than it would if would had just let it be... I wouldn't possibly risk my freedom over a few dollars worth of crap if it was me.

 

[secamp32]

Simple answer, NO. There might be some exceptions ins some states or situations but you should err on the side of caution and assume that answer is no. Generally, you can only use deadly physical force to prevent or terminate a crime that involves the use or threatened of force that can cause serious physical injury or death to you or another person. Additionally, in many states you are required to retreat if you can safely do so instead of using DPF.


YMMV (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice)

 

[HexHead]

What about Joe Horn? Wasn't even his stuff.

 

[denton]

My understanding is that deadly force is seldom, if ever, justified in the protection or recovery of property.

The life of the lowest, meanest scumbag in the world is worth more than anything I own. If my life is not in danger, I'm not even going to draw a weapon. My job is to get me and mine home with all our body parts, which is quite a bit easier than the job of a police officer who has to go out and handcuff the bad guy and haul him to jail.

OTOH, make like you're going to hurt my honey and you will get two in your center of mass.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Anybody who really thinks Texas law is clear and simple on allowing deadly force to recover property very respectfully needs to note the number of times the word "and" is used in the statute that Frank Ettin cited.

Every use of that word adds a significant set of circumstances which MUST be met in order for deadly force to be justified.

Suffice it to say that the use of deadly force solely to recover stolen property is NOT legal by itself, even in Texas.


Put it in perspective, folks...weigh the taking of a human life against simple stolen material goods and see where the priority should be.

And remember...justified or not, the taking of a human life has a great many more serious consequences than lost property.

 

[Frank Ettin]

What about Joe Horn? Wasn't even his stuff.

The Joe Horn case was not about the defense of property.

See this post:

...

There is a video of Mr. Horn running the officer's through the events leading up to the shooting and the shooting itself. The officer was very careful to ask him,"were you in fear of you life" and Mr. Horn responded in the affirmative. Horn talks about how there were two of them and one him, implying he was afraid. He states his reason for shooting was "I thought they were going to get me." In that case much was made of the fact that one of the guys had a crow bar and came towards Mr. Horn. I would not cite that case as an example of protecting property. Horn didn't claim to shoot to protect property. It was a self defense case.

The video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3WI6GBCgRw

Good post and a valuable insight. It shows very well by the Joe Horn case is not about using lethal force to protect property.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

You draw your weapon and demand the thug stop and return you property. He keeps walking, totally ignoring you. Are you justified if you shoot or must you just stand and watch as your personal property disappears down the street?

In Arkansas you must stand and watch as your property disappears down the street. You can only shoot to protect life, not property.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

Well everyone seems to ignore the class 3 felony of aggravated deadly assault by being hit over the head. Some might make the case of possible attempted murder. As as you awoke you saw the killer with his back to you.....

Of course this is going to need a possible $500k attorney. But if he dies you are the one telling the story. But then again there is no telling what 12 people will decide. Its a crap shoot (no pun intended) but me here in Texas, I might try to detain him but would not shoot.

I would have a free lawyer and he would screw up so bad that the jury woulld be thinking I was tempting the man to rob me as part of my master plan to kill him. I would go down for murder one and the express lane to the injection room.

 

[Texan Scott]

Don't shoot people over stuff. Seriously.

 

[beatledog7]

Nothing I own is worth putting a bullet in anybody, Texas' law notwithstanding.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by FuzzyBunny: Well everyone seems to ignore the class 3 felony of aggravated deadly assault by being hit over the head.

No, but it is too late to prevent the felony, and one cannot lawfully mete out punishment for it.

But if he dies you are the one telling the story.

Along with the forensic evidence and whatever else exists.

 

[Jim K]

I don't know about Texas, but in most states you would not be justified in using lethal force against a person who is leaving the scene and no longer poses a threat to you or anyone else. And in the original scenario, the thief is not armed.

That is the problem with "holding the bad guy for police" or "making a citizen's arrest". The BG can simply ignore you and walk away, humming a little tune. And unless you witnessed him committing a violent felony (and maybe not then) you can't shoot him and even chasing him down and holding him might not be legal.

Jim

 

[BLB68]

What if you ran up behind him and kicked him in the butt while he was ignoring your lawful orders to stop??

Then, when he turned around to attack you??

Never mind!

Probably a bad idea!

rc

A solid hit to the tailbone and you likely won't need any more force.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

I believe theres another condition of the texas law that conscerns your livelyhood. Your aloud to shoot a thief if you can proove what hes stealing will hinder your ability to make a living... frank?